PDA

View Full Version : Should crimes be replaced with private torts?


FreakyLocz14
March 6th, 2010, 05:53 PM
For example. When a person robs you, instead of trying to get them locked up, sue them for damages and include extra for pain and suffering and attorney fees.

If a relative of yours is killed, sue for wrongful death.
If someone beats you and injures you, sue for pain and suffering, medical fees, etc.

Criminal sanctions don't do anything to compensate the victim for the harm they've suffered except maybe symbolically. Torts are all about compensation.

jdbean5
March 6th, 2010, 05:58 PM
People are all about suing nowadays! I say send 'em to jail.

TRIFORCE89
March 6th, 2010, 06:07 PM
Why not both?

Sue them and then lock them up.

Muffin™
March 6th, 2010, 06:11 PM
I say if a person robs a bank, chop off their hands so they can't rob anymore! AND so people would be like "...I DON'T WAT MEH BUTYFAWL HANDZ CHAWPED OWFF!!!"

Sansa Stark
March 6th, 2010, 06:17 PM
I say if a person robs a bank, chop off their hands so they can't rob anymore! AND so people would be like "...I DON'T WAT MEH BUTYFAWL HANDZ CHAWPED OWFF!!!"
Well, in the US at least, we have the 8th amendment which is basically the "No Cruel & Unusual Punishments" clause. I find that . . moderately silly.

Frankly, I think both should occur as well. If someone's stealing, killing, dealing drugs . . they need to be locked up. :/

Otherwise, I wouldn't feel very safe =3=;

jasonresno
March 6th, 2010, 06:17 PM
For example. When a person robs you, instead of trying to get them locked up, sue them for damages and include extra for pain and suffering and attorney fees.

If a relative of yours is killed, sue for wrongful death.
If someone beats you and injures you, sue for pain and suffering, medical fees, etc.

Criminal sanctions don't do anything to compensate the victim for the harm they've suffered except maybe symbolically. Torts are all about compensation.

Just so I got this right. So if someone beats you savagely, bites you, threatens to kill you...sue for pain+suffering+medical etc?

I'm with that. Or make the consequences of said action be worse than what they did to conjure up their criminal charges. You rob someone: be stripped of every cent and property you've ever owned. You kill someone, and theres flawless evidence and no doubt, you get put down as well.

Muffin™
March 6th, 2010, 06:22 PM
New answer. If ANYONE commits a crime, they should be locked up forever. Let's say a guy was accused of kidnapping a child, or if a guy was dealing pot, drugs ect. to teenagers. If they let him/her out of prison, he could DO IT AGAIN! COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!!

God, some of the people in the world are just plain stupid :\


EDIT: You know I'm talking about politics, judges, ect... RIGHT?

Sansa Stark
March 6th, 2010, 06:28 PM
New answer. If ANYONE commits a crime, they should be locked up forever. Let's say a guy was accused of kidnapping a child, or if a guy was dealing pot, drugs ect. to teenagers. If they let him/her out of prison, he could DO IT AGAIN! COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!!

God, some of the people in the world are just plain stupid :\
W-what? I'm hoping this was sarcasm. That's kind of cruel as well XD;
I mean, some people change. And, everybody makes mistakes :[

And plus, we'd have extremely overcrowded penitentiaries. [which we already do DX]

flight
March 6th, 2010, 06:36 PM
W-what? I'm hoping this was sarcasm. That's kind of cruel as well XD;
I mean, some people change. And, everybody makes mistakes :[

And plus, we'd have extremely overcrowded penitentiaries. [which we already do DX]

I understand the side you're on Erik, but I have to admit that the poster does make some sense. It may sound inhumane and cruel punishment, but think about it for a moment. Think about the mindset the person had whilst committing the crime and the kinds of sick things they probably have planned for that crime. Which is worse, harsh government treatment or just letting them off, risking the possibility that the individual could commit the same crime again? Human lives are on the line here with the latter option. D:

Of course, I totally agree with you on the statement that some people do indeed change. But it's hard to say for certain because you would have to place yourself in the position of the person who committed the crime. I mean, if you had a chance to get out of prison, would you change your life around, or would you still be a rebel and commit the same crime again?

I mean, I agree with you, but it's a matter of some inquiries that come with that. D:

Sansa Stark
March 6th, 2010, 06:44 PM
Well, that's why we have the jail system: if someone breaks the law again, they go back jail for a longer time. And, usually, most people, when let out of jail, are on a probation system and if they violate it . . they go back to jail. (:

I mean, if you had a chance to get out of prison, would you change your life around, or would you still be a rebel and commit the same crime again?
Well, if the other option was life in prison, I would most certainly change. o_O

Which is worse, harsh government treatment or just letting them off, risking the possibility that the individual could commit the same crime again? Human lives are on the line here with the latter option. D:
In general, if someone charged with murder is released, they are on strict probation for quite some time, and have to visit with a parole officer, afaik. So I mean, it's not it's even that easy to get out after one commits murder. D:

And then, there's habaes corpus. :[~

Frankly, in regards to America, permanent imprisonment IS unconstitutional because of the 8th amendment :P

flight
March 6th, 2010, 06:54 PM
Well, that's why we have the jail system: if someone breaks the law again, they go back jail for a longer time. And, usually, most people, when let out of jail, are on a probation system and if they violate it . . they go back to jail. (:

...I totally forgot about probation. Okay, you have a point there. XD


Well, if the other option was life in prison, I would most certainly change. o_O

I accidentally created that hypothetical situation. I was more or less referring to the actual mind of a person who committed the crime and how they would see things. Would they change, or would they commit the same crime again? Pretty hard to say, since a lot of things would be held as basis to try to reach a verdict for this.


In general, if someone charged with murder is released, they are on strict probation for quite some time, and have to visit with a parole officer, afaik. So I mean, it's not it's even that easy to get out after one commits murder. D:

I may be terribly wrong, but the chances of a murderer being released from prison is slim to none; being as they're usually imprisoned without parole. D: But seeing as this is an "if", then I suppose yeah, you're right about that. XD

And then, there's habaes corpus. :[~

Frankly, in regards to America, permanent imprisonment IS unconstitutional because of the 8th amendment :P

But yet the U.S government does the whole "life in prison" thing anyway. :(

FreakyLocz14
March 6th, 2010, 06:56 PM
The reason I think torts should take over crime is beacuse imprisonment does nothing to rehabilitate the offender.

And by locking them up for extremely long periods of time just for punishment's sake, we are wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money supporting their incarceration.

Sansa Stark
March 6th, 2010, 07:01 PM
But yet the U.S government does the whole "life in prison" thing anyway. :(
But not for minor crimes :P

I accidentally created that hypothetical situation. I was more or less referring to the actual mind of a person who committed the crime and how they would see things. Would they change, or would they commit the same crime again? Pretty hard to say, since a lot of things would be held as basis to try to reach a verdict for this.
Which is what rehabilitation is. :p Sometimes, people change. Sometimes they don't. It just depends on the person, though. :[

The reason I think torts should take over crime is beacuse imprisonment does nothing to rehabilitate the offender.

And by locking them up for extremely long periods of time just for punishment's sake, we are wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money supporting their incarceration.
I'd rather have them locked up than on the streets. :\

flight
March 6th, 2010, 07:03 PM
The reason I think torts should take over crime is beacuse imprisonment does nothing to rehabilitate the offender.

And by locking them up for extremely long periods of time just for punishment's sake, we are wasting huge amounts of taxpayer money supporting their incarceration.

This sorta contradicts your first statement. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/147287/can_prison_change_your_life_for_the.html?cat=49)

And really, I would rather spend my working money on the government keeping the people that should be in jail in jail because otherwise I wouldn't feel safe with them roaming around the streets with the possibility that they could commit the same crime again. People can't psychologically change as a whole in 24 hours, the brain isn't programmed like that(at least, I don't think so). I mean, the people that are in jail, experiencing the harsh prison environment would probably think twice about what they've done and change for the better when they get out.

If you ask me, that's rehabilitation.

FreakyLocz14
March 6th, 2010, 07:12 PM
This sorta contradicts your first statement. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/147287/can_prison_change_your_life_for_the.html?cat=49)

And really, I would rather spend my working money on the government keeping the people that should be in jail in jail because otherwise I wouldn't feel safe with them roaming around the streets with the possibility that they could commit the same crime again. People can't psychologically change as a whole in 24 hours, the brain isn't programmed like that(at least, I don't think so). I mean, the people that are in jail, experiencing the harsh prison environment would probably think twice about what they've done and change for the better when they get out.

If you ask me, that's rehabilitation.

In actuality, most people will get out of prison eventually. Only murderers and really bad rapists get life or death sentences.

In prison, people learn to become better criminals and many join prison gangs for protection. All in all they come out worse than they were before.

flight
March 6th, 2010, 07:19 PM
In actuality, most people will get out of prison eventually. Only murderers and really bad rapists get life or death sentences.

In prison, people learn to become better criminals and many join prison gangs for protection. All in all they come out worse than they were before.

Stop making absurd generalizations. (http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/155696/motivation/does_prison_change_you___paris_vows_yes.html)

This doesn't apply to every single person who gets sent to prison. >>; Obviously, according to your points, you don't believe in the will of human choice, which sounds pretty ridiculous, but who am I to say anything about what a person's views are?

Esper
March 6th, 2010, 07:40 PM
In actuality, most people will get out of prison eventually. Only murderers and really bad rapists get life or death sentences.

In prison, people learn to become better criminals and many join prison gangs for protection. All in all they come out worse than they were before.
This sounds more like an issue with how prisons are run than the idea of prisons in general. Yeah, prisons are pretty bad, but if you have nothing to loose but your freedom then paying compensation to someone you hurt doesn't seem like a big deterrent.

I've met one or two ex-gang members who've gone back to school and do community work. People can change. Just because some, or even lots don't doesn't mean we shouldn't try to rehabilitate them because you never know.

FreakyLocz14
March 6th, 2010, 11:11 PM
This sounds more like an issue with how prisons are run than the idea of prisons in general. Yeah, prisons are pretty bad, but if you have nothing to loose but your freedom then paying compensation to someone you hurt doesn't seem like a big deterrent.

I've met one or two ex-gang members who've gone back to school and do community work. People can change. Just because some, or even lots don't doesn't mean we shouldn't try to rehabilitate them because you never know.

I agree that we should run reform-school style prisons. Where inmates are required to attend classes (for High School Diploma, GED, College, vocational, or whatever level of education they are at) and those in on drug offenses are treated for their addictions. Inmates will mental health issues would be treated as well.

Obviously there will be the un-reformable so we can have traditional prisons for those people but that should be reserved for the last resort.

The Prince of Sweet Sorrow
March 6th, 2010, 11:52 PM
No, this wouldn't help. Money is money, you could live without it. But if you're locked up, it'd seem more like a penalty, because of the feeling.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
March 7th, 2010, 05:49 AM
Why not both? Especially in countries without national healthcare systems, GBH and such crimes could be VERY expensive for the victim, and what if they don't have health insurance? Maybe that was a stupid thing, but they're suffering even more. Simply put, this is my idea: say somebody commits GBH. They are sued/fined/whatever you want to call it for the amount to cover healthcare etc. If the victim is put in a wheelchair, they would also have to pay to have their home converted, etc. And THEN, they are imprisoned/rehabilitated/whatever.

Graceful
March 7th, 2010, 06:37 AM
I think for murdering PRISON. And If it's not that extreme - like selling drugs I would say a fine. I don't believe in suing...

Sansa Stark
March 7th, 2010, 12:13 PM
I think for murdering PRISON. And If it's not that extreme - like selling drugs I would say a fine. I don't believe in suing...
....That does nothing to stop them from dealing. :/

the bitter end.
March 7th, 2010, 08:53 PM
I say that the punishment should fit the crime. ex. If someone steals money, get them to give it back via. Fine or similar such method.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
March 10th, 2010, 12:17 PM
Torts do also raise the problem of rich people being able to get away with criminal activity a lot more easily.

twocows
March 10th, 2010, 03:23 PM
People that break the law should be made to cover any damages, in addition to doing something useful for society during their incarceration.

LayZee_in_charge
April 3rd, 2010, 12:42 AM
sue'n should only be done if the incedent is minor and jail should be for murdererz and pedafilez....jailz are too packed to be arresting and spending tax money on sting operationz just to take down a couple weed dealers and crooks.... basicly all the non voilent offenders, should be sue'd and fined for there actions...hit'em where it hurts the money....but we kno thats not gonna happen too bad huh...

ILoveDragonite
April 3rd, 2010, 12:44 AM
I'm still a firm believer in "Eye for an eye"

Someone steals a cookie from your cookie jar, steal a cookie from theirs.
Someone kills your sister, kill them.
Someone robs you, rob them the heck back.
Someone jumps you, get friends, jump back.

Danick
April 3rd, 2010, 03:24 PM
Ya good Idea, then they come back for revenge.

ILoveDragonite
April 3rd, 2010, 04:44 PM
Ya good Idea, then they come back for revenge.
precisely! This one catches on quick. =D

Reina
April 3rd, 2010, 09:29 PM
No idea if anyone mentioned this, but ... what was it, Hammurabis code? They went by an eye for an eye, steal and get your hand chopped off, hurt someone get the same pain back to you, etc etc, but did it really keep anyone from committing crimes?

Yusshin
April 3rd, 2010, 09:47 PM
If you kill or rape someone, or sexually molest a child, I'd like the death penalty.

In Canada, most crimes are punished with prison and/or community service, and in some cases, recompensation towards the victims.

Suing for everything doesn't solve anything.

FreakyLocz14
April 4th, 2010, 12:02 AM
Some states do treat minor infractions like traffic tickets, petty theft, and drug use due to addiction, as civil issues instead of criminal issues.
Where I live isn't one of those states. We have crimes such as "Petty Theft with a Prior", which is a felony and "Felony Petting" amongst other things.
If no harm was caused other than monetary harm, it makes sense that the penalty should be monetary compensation. In the case of drug use, the penalty could be compulsory rehabiliation.

Prison sentences should be reserved for people who are a grave danger to the community or repeat offenders who fail to be rehabilitated.

Sneeze
April 4th, 2010, 02:41 AM
"An eye for and eye and the whole world is blind" ~ Gandi

Fair enough if someone kills like ten people then they need putting down but killing a one-off murderer, no, not in my opinion.

And on topic, no, because if someone is rich then they can effectively do anything they want and pay people off.

Throat
April 4th, 2010, 03:31 AM
That's funny how some people would like the human rights to be canceled.

@topic
It would only work in a perfect world, usually, who robs is in the deepest level of the hole. Besides, you can always issue other people for unimportant crimes.

Melody
April 5th, 2010, 10:10 AM
I feel that it really depends upon the crime committed and the damage done. Some people are happy to see the criminals sit in jail.

Now I do agree, there has to be some compensation for injury, and damaged/stolen property. As for death, I really don't know what price one can put on a person's life, but in cases where the person killed was someone who had dependents, some compensation can be made based upon what that person would have made when they lived, but by no means should this be mandatory, only in cases where it's clearly needed.

In the case of a lost child, I really do think some compensation is appropriate but what price can someone put on that? Definitely no one could offer a reasonable price in my eyes for that. While compensation is OK in that situation, I don't think they should be able to sue for damages unless it's seriously affecting their bottom line income, and not be allowed to tack on more than a set amount for so called "Pain and Suffering".

King Goodra
April 5th, 2010, 11:06 AM
You can't put a price on a human life or any acts made against them, such as rape. It's one thing to sue for damages done to property that you own, but something done to a human, an act of murder, or another crime of the sort, should not be paid back through money. That's not justice at all. That's letting people act out crimes and pay for them through money they earn, which is no different from stopping at a store, breaking something, and having to pay for it.

FreakyLocz14
April 5th, 2010, 12:27 PM
We are already putting a price on someone's life. We say it's worth x amount of years behind bars. How would measuring it in money be any different? How does the victim benefit by the incarceration of their attacker? By providing the 3 free meals a day, free health care, and free shelther at their and other taxpayer's expense of course. How is that justice?

We get in our minds in America that prison is the answer to everything that's why our system is so screwed up.

Yamikarasu
April 5th, 2010, 01:28 PM
We are already putting a price on someone's life. We say it's worth x amount of years behind bars. How would measuring it in money be any different? How does the victim benefit by the incarceration of their attacker? By providing the 3 free meals a day, free health care, and free shelther at their and other taxpayer's expense of course. How is that justice?

We get in our minds in America that prison is the answer to everything that's why our system is so screwed up.

Well, under the system you propose, people like Bill Gates can basically kill anyone they want since they can afford it. No, suing for things like that is stupid. It simply complicates and an already complicated legal process.

The purpose of prisons are not only punishment but reform. With prisons, people can think about what they've done and spend time away from society to use that time to become a better person. This is ideal of course, and people still sometimes commit crimes after jail, but there is no chance for reform if they just have to pay a fine for whatever crime you commit.

The Magus
April 5th, 2010, 01:51 PM
Why not both?

Sue them and then lock them up.
quoted for truth
I am humbled to thee, o great thinker

FreakyLocz14
April 5th, 2010, 08:41 PM
Well, under the system you propose, people like Bill Gates can basically kill anyone they want since they can afford it. No, suing for things like that is stupid. It simply complicates and an already complicated legal process.

The purpose of prisons are not only punishment but reform. With prisons, people can think about what they've done and spend time away from society to use that time to become a better person. This is ideal of course, and people still sometimes commit crimes after jail, but there is no chance for reform if they just have to pay a fine for whatever crime you commit.

Prison accomplishes the opposite of reform. People learn to become more sophisticated, violent, criminals behind those walls. Given this, prison should be reserved for dangerous, violent offenders. Non-violent offenders should not be converted into violent ones at the governments expense. If our goal is to deter crime, placing these people behind bars isn't the solution.

Why should someone caught selling marijuana be sent somewhere to be instructed in criminal ways by murderes and rapists only to carry on their legacy when they get out?If reform and deterance are the goal, we need to intervence in alternative ways if this is a more appropriate action.

Missingno.7-4468
April 5th, 2010, 09:01 PM
Personally, small crimes, such as petty theft, vandalization, and so forth, should be sued for/have a fine.

Major crimes, murder, thieving spree, rape and so forth should have a set amount of time in prison.

Serial killers and serial rapists? Put 'em on the gallows in my opinion. criminals like them should not be able to be out in the world.

This would have been more wordy, but I'm tired, G'night.